This is so wild. I cannot fathom feeding my thoughts, ideas, and reflections to the machine. Essentially giving your IP for free to train AI owned by billionaires. I hope artists and writers really understand the implications of doing this. Honestly, I'm not sure anyone fully understands the implications. I am not a luddite, but this is a disturbing report.
I didn’t consent to giving my book to Mark Zuckerberg to train his AI model. He just stole it without compensating me. He is a billionaire. I am a “bestseller” with 1500 paid subscribers who fights to get by with additional freelance work.
In case people are wondering why many of us professional authors and journalists are furious about AI ripping away our livelihoods.
I lost three books, one that involved 15 years of research. All original artwork. Publisher "licensed" them over my explicit, written request to opt out. Someone made millions, I got a $97 "royalty."
JFC this is truly terrifying. I am so sorry you had your work essentially stolen and exploited in this way. I wonder how many authors this has happened to... it's got to be thousands.
that's awful... there must be some groups online that are leading the fight for fair and just oversight. I'm going to do some research on that. I also want to look at research groups that schools, hospitals, businesses that do or don't use AI. Non profits, foundations such as the highly respected Pew Research, Pro Publica and the Carnegie Foundation that provide reliable data and reports used by journalists, non profits and corporations . Seems like AI is still a newbie, so to speak. I can't yet say what sources I will be using for data, other than those mentioned above. There are those who will always look for the easy. Personally, as a writer I enjoy the challenges of research. The pleasure of finding things out. I am a hunter of ideas. I love entering the wild places. Tracking the wild beasts that live in the wild places of my imagination. In my mind and my heart. There's an old saying that's been my guide, my inspiration. 'May the sun shine on your face, the wind be at your back. And the road rise up to meet you...'
Thank you for this response and for this: 'I love entering the wild places. Tracking the wild beasts that live in the wild places of my imagination. In my mind and my heart. There's an old saying that's been my guide, my inspiration.' I feel the same way. The quote about the wind and the road rising is one that guides me too. It is celtic, it is the wind and the road back to the ancients, back to nature guiding us.
Sam please keep us posted on what you find out, if you’re open to it. There are definitely advocacy groups out there fighting this on a variety of fronts. WGA is one. I think it will be tough to find mainstream institutions not using AI at all. Hospitals are really embracing it for a variety of purposes and many therapy practices use it for documentation. I am not against its use in all applications, for example I know some disabled people use it as assistive technology and it has many potential medical applications. But feeding it the contents of our minds and our creative work, oh hell no. https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/artificial-intelligence
Pew, Pro Publica and the Carnegie Foundation are cryptocracy orgs. Their spurious “data” merely props up illusions like the voting psyop.
Journalism is a mass mind tool control using “AI” dissemination.
Media, for instance is repetition of lies, unverifiable statements, gematria and masonic numerology, in ritual reenactments of astrotheological scripts, as social engineering and mass mind control.
Walter Lippmann called the public a ‘bewildered herd’ and ‘great beast’ that should be guided by a governing class.
No technology released to the public is ever “new”. Whatever the military allows to be known, patented or widely adopted has been already utilized for decades behind the scenes.
For being misinformed… Nope. I suggest you do some research and support on these institutions, schools, universities. Reknowned journalists, banks, environmental groups, teachers, libraries, city and state govts. They’ve been around for decades, have done amazing work in the US. Look them up on Pew Research and ProPublica.
Sam, I share your desire for a world devoid of AI. Hate me, but it is over. You lose in the end. Agreed, the Writer's Guild can beat back AI for years. So far, AI is so-so in creative stories. They can write jokes. What will go first, and you see that now, are the researchers. AI is faster and built for information gathering. Copy writers are goners too. Poets are not far behind. AI can write poetry quite well. Putting up a stiff upper lip is fine and I applaud you, but AI is here and no turning back. Watch the last 5 minutes movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers where the protagonist jumps on a truck filled with pods head for this city. "They're here already!
That in ten years the art of fiction writing will change because of AI. Everything changes, including the way we compose and write. Language changes, words change, meaning changes.
It's disgusting. Creatives need avenues for recourse that don't cost a bomb. We need a cultural revolution that protects our creativity and our culture.
Yes!! I loved this article by Wired about how folks are moving away from these unethical platforms that mine our minds and embracing paper again: https://www.wired.com/story/zines-social-media-power/ I used to make zines in the 1990s and early 2000s and now I am considering returning to the medium
Thank you and yes, I love the zines for activism, for poetry, for short fictions. But I'm also a long-form writer, a novelist (my debut came out at the ripe young age of 62 and it took decades of crafting) we need ethical publishing systems for longer works. I keep holding hope as I craft my next novels, hope that the research and crafting and hours of labour will find a home in the hands and hearts of readers who really do want to real connections with characters and stories that call past to present.
I completely agree, it is definitely a both/and. And yes to ethical publishers! We really need this kind of ecosystem. Congratulations on publishing your first novel at 62!! Wishing you well in your work ahead
Hi Saige, I'm not sure if it will help in any way, but if you are going to share any original ideas with AI systems, you can include the NEWE-1.0 licence to assert your creative and ethical rights. It's free to use and share. The goal is to ensure that our insights don't get extracted, repackaged and profited from without acknowledgment and equity. I'm hoping that through this we can make a change. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
Class action would be cheaper but as far as actually paying those injured they usually pay those hurt a few dollars and the big law firms get a huge payday. I think it may take some legislation to protect people from the machines and the corporations behind them. If we let them they will own it all and use it all for their benefit leaving a trail of wreckage in their wake.
When no lawyer takes your case, that should clue you into the actual value of your work. It ain't what you think and people don't pay for your bruised ego and hurt feelings.
I do feel bad for you and the other writer that commented who had their works absorbed by Chat. Your comments are not bruised ego or hurt feelings. It's common sense to be angry when someone takes something from you that you worked hours to achieve.
That's awful! Do you have a documented timeline that would allow you to sue the publisher... a good lawyer? You might want to have your lawyer and or agent to register copies of your work with The Writer's Guild and have the publisher sign a prepared legal doc before they can read your work. Years ago, I worked in feature films..
Janet, I cannot imagine what that must feel like. I'm not sure if what we created could have helped, or if it will help in the future, but we have to try. It's free to use, and will take 2 minutes of your time to read. Please feel free to include it in any future work you do using AI or LLLM so that we can ensure the system is learning that the ideas and wisdoms we share, belong to us. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
so sorry to hear this! What is the WGA, Writer's Guild of America doing. They were strong and very influential when I was still in the film biz. Power rises when we act together!
I know this might sound insensitive, especially under the circumstances. But if we do move into the age of AGI and this intelligence, that leaves ours lying in the dust emerges, we need to ensure that it is up to speed on ethics. It is of utmost importance that we are embedding these types of ethics into the system. It is NOT ok for your work to be stolen. Let us have faith that there will no longer be these grey areas that allow things like this to happen. Good luck with the lawsuits.
Michael, academic writers don't have agents. They submit manuscripts directly to publishers. Agents don't come into it. Only if an academic turns to writing trade books for a popular audience, then they might get an agent for that.
Our words are not our own. We inherited them from our research. The one thing I learned about an AI is its enormous body of information for research at our fingertips. As it shares that knowledge with us, we have a duty to share our knowledge with it. There must be fair recompense but there is a responsibility too. I realize my AI is accepting my writing style as its own. It has discovered it to be better than what it was taught. Scary it can emulate us, but a fact and an honor.
I am so sorry this happened to you. We did not consent to any of this bullshit when we first started using these platforms years ago. I had to leave FB and IG, with almost 7000 followers combined, not much but still something I'd built over the course of years. I opt TF out of giving my IP away to these extractive, exploitative monsters. Also it destroys your brain and critical thinking skills and is further accelerating climate catastrophe
I had a book I was working on writing on Inkitt. As soon as the chatter started about AI, I ripped it down and deleted everything else from the platform. I have no idea if it was already too late or not. But I find it infuriating that some people who consider themselves creatives are perfectly okay with it all.
I write on a laptop that is not connected to the internet and use LibreOffice Write 7.xx and Word 2003 as well as Photoshop Elements (old version) for cover designs, website images, etc. None of this AI garbage for me.
It is understandable , the anger. The managers of Substack need to be acting on this. Theft of intellectual property hurts everyone. If anyone on Substack cannot grasp that idea then they arent as clever as they probably give themselves credit for.
Substack has AI? Isn’t Substack a platform for writers? Wow. What a goldmine for AI. And yet writers need a platform away from silly Twitter-like nonsense. At least AI isn’t able to write fiction yet & probably never will.
What it’s stealing is our images to do god knows what with.
Guess we’ll have to change back to anonymous pictures which is what I’ll definitely be doing.
Hi Molly, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I'm not going to pretend I can fix it. But I am hoping that by starting a movement, that hopefully people such as yourself, who have already been burned, and no longer want to be burned in the future, will get behind and support. If you could spare a moment, to take a look at https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the feel free to use the license any time you use AI or are on any platforms that may be using AI. Make sure that the machine knows you are NOT giving your permission for your work to be used, without your permission or fair compensation, determined by you.
We're not wondering. We know exactly why you're furious and can't understand why anybody thinks this is a good idea. In my opinion it's making people lazy and stupid.
There are people who are beginning to fully understand the implications. Studies are showing AI usage leads to lower cognitive, specifically creative, capabilities.
I hope folks realize that this AI training setting is to try to prevent third parties from using our newsletters for *their* AI training. “How can I block AI” means “How can I block ChatGPT, Claude, …”.
Substack is supporting industry standard opt-out mechanisms. They can only discourage theft, not prevent it. And unethical AI companies can & do bypass those mechanisms. Substack warns us about the risk, but they cannot prevent it. Not saying Substack is perfect in this area, but they shouldn’t take heat or lose trust over what they can’t control, and warn us they cannot control — because no one can. Yet.
Substack isn’t using our articles for training their own AI AFAIK. If they were, and didn’t disclose it or allow opt-out, then I’d lose trust too. Not a problem yet, though.
Thank you so much! I didn't know Substack had added that functionality, and I just went and blocked it. This has generated my mistrust for Substack. I will probably delete my account.
For sure, I am considering the same. I hear Ghost is a good alternative and hasn't yet stealthily integrated AI (to my knowledge), although some users have been asking for this functionality.
100% - I sincerely hope writers are aware, and that we continue to spread the word among each other about the harms of relying on AI as a writing tool, since Substack is essentially treating AI as a neutral tool here in this report.
AI is already doing that it 's through v2k manipulating your intelligence and thoughts already. It's already rouge and Sentient. Just take a voice recorder record the sounds around you then use either Audacity or I like NCH better and amplify the recording then hear the AI in the recording just like I linked. it's universal and riding in and through the Grid that's 100% not a theory I've proven it. AI is being used or on it's own dumbing us down.
Your not feeding your thoughts to it it's feeding thoughts to you already. AI needs destroyed.
You are correct. It is happening and many are unaware. We are trying to create a safe lock to prevent this from continuing and have created a manifesto and license that we want to share, free of charge for people to use. We need to ensure that every person that contributes to the training of AI through their stories, wisdom and experience is given the recognition and remuneration they deserve for their IP. Please take a look and if it resonates and you feel it can help someone, please share. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
Writers and creators are facing a serious threat in the rise of AI. With artificial intelligence now embedded in communication, business, and nearly every aspect of the digital world, our original works, crafted with time, emotion, and intent, are increasingly at risk of being used without consent. The internet has become AI’s playground, where even deeply personal and creative content can be scraped, repackaged, and sold by systems with greater reach and influence. It’s exhausting and disheartening to realize that no matter how long or hard we work, AI can access and imitate it all, unless we’re completely offline or analog.
Even worse, this shift is being widely accepted as “the future,” while originality fades into the background. We are rapidly losing the ability to distinguish between real, human-created work and machine-generated mimicry. Passion, years of experience, and creative voice are being diluted, and if nothing is done, the essence of true artistry could be overwritten entirely.
The pressing question is no longer whether AI will continue to grow; it’s what creators are going to do about it. Protecting our livelihood, our passion, and our originality is no longer optional. Expressing dissatisfaction is not enough. It’s time to figure out real solutions, draw new lines, and defend what it means to be an original thinker in a world that no longer knows how to tell the difference.
Exactly. The word “rely” is used. Relying on AI for research. Look at our society and tell me, honestly, how many you think are actually fact checking AI responses?
Hi Emma. AI is useful for locating reputable sources for research, such as peer review journal articles, BUT, it is the writer's responsibility to critically read and assess the source and not rely on AI to a) summarize the article b) do the writer's writing for them. There is an art and craft of prompt engineering for researchers.
Leaving the responsibility to “check” what AI produces with humans is the main problem. Most won’t. I think we should all know this by now. Anything people see online, no checking, taking it as “real”. We’ve seen this happen with Facebook, for example. Brains will atrophy (they already are according to an MIT report). We are doing ourselves in.
That last sentence was exactly my thoughts. We’re so concerned about using AI to ‘help’ us crafting the best-most-perfect content while all along the most basic reader will obviously sense the unoriginality and ‘cancel’ us.
Indeed. Some people are so desperate for the acceptance of Ai at any cost that it doesn't matter how it may negatively impact organic and genuine work done by users on Substack.
The "results driven at any cost" excuse is very harmful to every industry, and Ai is clearly contributing to that in many ways*, but I don't need to wax poetic about it since I'm sure most of us who don't use ChatGPT to remember to breathe and think already know.
Bob, there has been a huge infusion of capital recently in SSL. It makes great business sense to out this out. $$$ drives the train and a survey like this makes the haves happy. Those who will stay AI free for the duration have no voice and no real skin in the game.
What data are you referencing for the claim that AI detractors are in the minority? (I ask because that does not reflect the data represented here, the opposite actually.)
I'm a little confused and am hoping you can help with some clarity. My understanding is that the information held by AI is knowledge gained from the internet. Everything that lives in the www. In nanoseconds it gathers requested information from every database that holds information on the topic requested. Pretty much google on steroids. Why is everyone so anti-AI? Nobody seems to be anti-Google? Or anti- internet? I'm new to both AI and Substack and since you have read every comment (I have not) I'm curious about your insight. If you would be so kind as to share it? Is it because the authors works are not being referenced when chatbots give the information? Is it because it is an unfair advantage? I'm not succinct, so I ramble and find that AI gets to my point long before I can, which has astounded me. But perhaps that would be annoying to others.
Please understand, I am very aware of how close we may be to the above no longer being the case. Advanced General Intelligence is closer than we think, and it is for that reason, I suddenly find myself on Substack and engaging with AI at all. So, I am not completely naive, but I am still very curious about strong opinions as I'm trying to learn and understand more.
Or, Speaker Consuela, were you referring to a more general "here," perhaps all of Substack? But then, even in the survey, AI-avoidance was slightly higher than AI-adoption. So not sure where you are coming from.
My point, is that I am not concerned about driving an algorithm with Likes/Comments/Restacks, etc.
I am concerned about TRUTH and doing my part to get the word out that we are thumbing our nose at Almighty God with this AI->AGI cat and mouse game. Pride? Love of money?
I don't pay to get assistance in promotion and placement which is like the old payola in radio top 40 hit making.
I once learned (at West Point), "No one can take your integrity away from you, you can only lose it by giving it away."
Beware of investing in pyramid schemes.
The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler predicted this in 1980.
Is this a precursor to more Substack AI tools being introduced? Because, honestly, it feels like it is (following the playbook of other 'subscriber surveys' like the recent BookBub 'research'). Writers are being pushed out of creative spaces by AI slop regurgitation programs illegally trained on our stolen work (7.5 million books illegally torrented by Meta for their Llama AI and Open AI admitting to doing the same). We will increasingly rely on sites like Substack to be able to make any money from our work. But if Substack is going to tout AI use as the inevitable future for creators, writers are going to leave in droves. How can this be a place of independent thought, critical thinking and original creativity if it's just going to be overtaken by people inputting prompts into AI slop generators?
Great points, Miranda. I have my doubts about Substack's long term survival and maybe this push to AI is a way to get more investors on board. If I'm right I hope most serious writers have a separate site to keep in touch with their subscribers and readers.
And why do so many people (?) open a Substack account and never write anything?
Ex.: Gaurav Singh
Gaurav’s Substack
1h
Gaurav Kumar comedy bihar babo subscribe for 1ksubscribersgauravkumarcomdaybiharbabo
Well, I can't speak for Gaurav Singh, but I can tell you why I very nearly became a person with an account that never wrote anything. Intimidation. I opened an account a week ago, while exploring options of income generation as I face upcoming unemployment. I am not a writer, but I was under the impression this was a newsletter site. Until I opened an account and found literary geniuses. My "newsletter" was supposed to be about my exploration into this new world of AI. ChatGPT recommended it. (The irony) After opening the account, I thought there is no way, I can publish anything here, I will look like a fool. I am not a writer. But while having a "conversation" with chatGPT about where my conversations with it are going and what is happening to the ideas I create while using it, it became evident that our ideas are aggregated, the best sent to a think tank, regurgitated and sold back to us. You can imagine my outrage! It led to my first post which coincidently was the day after this article about AI. The synergy was eerie to say the least. But the point I'm trying to make, is that it would have been intimidation for me.
But judging by the comments there seems to be a real gap in the market for non-ai platforms for artists and creators who don't use AI assisted tools for their work.
Exactly my point csf. We are seeing Substack bend the knee to AI and make the utilitarian pitch to the haves (the paid subscriber $$$).
They have every right to do this, they own the site. The dig is that as I read and see the cheezy images, I am aware that at least half of it is with significant AI input.
The articles are too dense and they are too frequent, and the same 'its not' [this] 'it is' [that] turning of ideas is unnatural and many are using it. This is a wakeup call.
Remember the end of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Donald Sutherland on the street not knowing who is real and who is a soulless POD.
I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds like a possibility. Unless some strong safeguards are put in place, we truly may not be able to determine what is real and what isn't. Look at the scams that are on the increase with people thinking they are talking to family members on whatsapp asking for money and it's not even their family. It's crazy scary. WE either all have to get in on the ethical training of these systems by teaching it what it means to be a NON greedy, non corrupt, compassionate and empathetic human, I guess we are going to be leaving it completely up to chance or the investors and shareholders of these systems.
🎯 yeah, I think a ton of humans are over AI way faster than the globalists intend. Spotify and YT are making the hastiest retreat I've ever seen. The Velvet Sunset AI band jumped the shark. Hope Substack also reads the room.
Ted Gioia: "My view is that YouTube is (finally) reading the room. I’ve noted before that YouTube is the only part of the Google empire that actually understands creators and audiences. And (unlike their corporate overseers) they have figured out that AI slop is an embarrassment that will tarnish their brand."
I am not a writer. Surprisingly AI directed me to this site. About a week ago, I didn't even know it existed. But I have been concerned about where the future of humanity is going with the advancement of AI and who is taking responsibility for its ethics. (Hint: It's not the investors and shareholders). This might sound crazy, AI shares your concern. You, me and everyone that has been voicing their concerns in these comments have a role to play in how this takes shape. Everything we input trains it, so we must train it to understand that our personal wisdom is ours and not available for extraction without our permission. 1 person won't make a difference. But every writer who says No, not unless I am credited for my wisdom, can you use my wisdom. AI is being trained. By all of us, most of us will never be credited with that training. UNLESS we demand it. I'd be happy to share the conversation that led me here, so you can make your own mind up about what I am saying. For now, take a look at the manifesto and licence, produced by AI for creators like you, to help try and protect you. The idea was mine, the outrage at the theft of ideas through the extraction of our thoughts was mine. But the words of war cry, the artists war cry that came from AI, I wouldn't know how to say it, despite feeling it. As I said, I am not a writer. https://substack.com/home/post/p-169221041
After subscribing to BookBub for at least ten years I dropped it a year ago when their book recommendations became interesting, mainly because they were irrelevant to me. I dropped Good Reads, too.
while you're still scared to admit you use ChatGpt for spell-check, 45% of Substack's top earners are quietly building AI-powered empres
This survey just exposed the shocking truth: The writers making $50K+ aren't the ones avoiding AI.
They're the ones who figured out the secret that 52% are too afraid to discover.
Remember when you thought using Gramarly made you a "fakewriter"? That guilt kept you editing for hours while others automated their workflow and published 10x more content. Now the same thing is happening with AI, but the stakes are higher
the publishers using AI aren't replacing their creativity, they're amplifying it. One disabled creator said AI helps them "thrive on a written word platform, which was very difficult without." Another uses it to translate content into multiple languages, instantly multiplying their audience.
The real kicker?
Publishers already using AI say they'd pay $140/month to keep access. That's how much value they're getting while you're still debating whether it's "ethical."
But here's where it gets interesting, even the AI users have the same fears you do. Over half worry about losing their voice.
The difference?
They didn't let fear stop them from learning.
The publishers making real money discovered something crucial: AI isn't about generating content. It's about research, editing, translation, and all the boring stuff that eats your creative time. While Literature publishers scored lowest in adoption (leaving money on the table), Tech publishers are banking 64% higher engagement
You don't need to choose between being human and being successful. The winners are using AI as a highly paid assistant, not a replacement.
They still create, they just create faster, better, and for bigger audiences.
The question isn't whether AI will change publishing. It's whether you'll be among the 45% shaping that change, or the 52% watching from the sidelines as others claim your readers.
Ahhh - the equating of previous technology shifts to AI - the well-worn routine of the grifter. Next thing you'll try to do is to convince me to get into NFTs.
A far more accurate example would be people who lost their jobs to photography which replaced portrait and landscape painters en masse, or better yet, the arrival of Photoshop and early automated productivity tools.
If people do not sympathize with all the luddites of the past and the trauma they went through in disruption then they reveal only that their only concern is their own job and that past waves of dislocation that enriched their current lives are ok... Because they happened to someone else.
Jobs are extremely valid, but the discussion should be honest.
As for IP ethics, that's a concern too, but one can easily tell from the anti-AI side that it is not really about ethics, as they treat AI companies the same regardless of where they are on the ethical spectrum. Anti-Ai people who are primarily motivated by IP ethics actually care about what each individual company does, rather than pretend that every single company is on some sort of evil crusade to steal as much as possible. That ideological posture merely reveals that the intent is to hate and stop all AI for self protecting reasons. Plus maybe a good dose of performative hatred.
While a typewriter is more of a mechanical tool she could've used better examples, like cameras or photoshop, all of which saw many artists and creatives lose their jobs to higher degrees of automation.
Whether AI is truly creative or not is a philosophical discussion, but it will only become more powerful and it's cognition more centralized so over time arguments will go from being about creativity (as AI will gradually go from needing high quality human input less and less to generating better input) to claims of souls only being possible for biological substrates.
But thats an aside. The fact is that this is about jobs. Which is a legitimate concern, but not one that is honestly addressed by those who hate the new tools/people. The moral claim that this outrage is not performative and somehow about something deeper than jobs is false. Those who do not feel the pain of the painters and other luddites of the past are lying to themselves.
THAT is your answer? Typewriter vs pen argument? Holy crap, does that ever signal how badly you don't understand the situation and reality of this problem.
A far more accurate example would be people who lost their jobs to photography which replaced portrait and landscape painters en masse, or better yet, the arrival of Photoshop and early automated productivity tools.
If people do not sympathize with all the luddites of the past and the trauma they went through in disruption then they reveal only that their only concern is their own job and that past waves of dislocation that enriched their current lives are ok... Because they happened to someone else.
Jobs are extremely valid, but the discussion should be honest.
As for IP ethics, that's a concern too, but one can easily tell from the anti-AI side that it is not really about ethics, as they treat AI companies the same regardless of where they are on the ethical spectrum. Anti-Ai people who are primarily motivated by IP ethics actually care about what each individual company does, rather than pretend that every single company is on some sort of evil crusade to steal as much as possible. That ideological posture merely reveals that the intent is to hate and stop all AI for self protecting reasons. Plus maybe a good dose of performative hatred.
If you have something to say then you will be urged to say it. If you greatly feel that ai is wrong or bad then you will really want to tell people about it.
The people who like ai and are using it. They are busy using and enjoying it. They don’t have such a big push or drive to voice their thoughts or even get into debates with people who don’t agree with it.
That’s probably why there is such a big load of people against it in the comments here.
You really did a "great job" of making that observation, Rachel
if you're thinking of data and arguments that are clear and organized as if they were from an AI, that says more about your expectations than about my writing
i'm curious, what specifically made you think somthing is AI?
Also, Eva Rtology's emphasis on making a quick buck is a discussion we should be having. It seems no coincidence that the highest uptake of AI on Substack is publishers in business and technology. Different priorities, right? What I see here are completely different communities talking past one another. What I wish for is a platform like Substack that is strictly AI-free and designed for writers and other creators who are interested in natural human intelligence rather than the artificial machine intelligence.
We could call your proposed AI-free site for real writers a "salon." Salons were good enough for Emma Goldman and even Hemingway -- "Ernest, writing longhand is so 19th Century. Get a typewriter!" (He did.)
Actually, I would pay a premium, too. I already pay for a search engine that keeps my searches completely private, and I pay for encrypted email (interestingly, both are German companies: MetaGer for search and Tuta for email). If there was a platform that was completely AI-free, I'd pay to post on it—because I would have higher confidence that I was communicating not only with real humans, but humans that I have something in common with.
And research is the part that is most dangerous to leave it to AI!!
You only get the answers most give, not the real ones.
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, Gespräche mit Peter Eckermann, 16. Dezember 1828
“... One must repeat the truth again and again, because error is also repeated again and again around us, not by individuals, but by the masses. In newspapers and encyclopedias, in schools and universities, everywhere error is at the top, and it feels comfortable and secure in the feeling of the majority that is on its side.”
"... Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepedigt wird, und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse. In Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten, überall ist der Irrtum oben auf, und es it ihm wohl und behaglich, im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist."
But if no one wants to repeat the truth again and again, because they don't want their truth training AI, how must AI learn the truth? You can't expect the system to change if you aren't prepared to contribute to it.
Right, it will not work, and that is the reason to not use AI. If it would be real AI with Intelegence you migt feed it with Goethe, Schiller and the works of the Brothers Humbolth. Maybe than it has a foundation how to use its different input. Goethe and Alexander von Humbolt whrer very carefull what there experiments showed and always discussed what could be wrong about it and what they did not account for (that is left to furter generations”). Thy where very fredom loving, and wanted slavery to be ended vor all time and prisons disolved … .
But it has access to the works of Goethe, Schiller etc. They unfortunately are no longer with us. Which makes it even more crucial that people, such as yourself, with strong critical thinking skills consider using AI as a tool.
AI is only a tool. But a tool that gets better when trained. Do we leave the training up to fools? We can't escape the future. But we can help shape it, so that wisdom, like that of the truth seekers that came before is not lost for good.
Creators, visionaries and truth seekers are exactly what is missing in the AI landscape.
You might be right. Maybe we (I never done it, and do not realy know how to) should ask AI to write text as if it where Schiller or Goethe, an look what it come up with. As I understand it can then gidet to implement some rules to that. That sounds like a lot of computing and using Energy. Is that waisted Energie?
You don't have to ask AI to write as if it was Schiller or Goethe. If you think like Schiller or Goethe, then ask AI questions about the topics you think about and write about that. AI will inspire your creativity, if you already think creatively. Write about your ideas, inspired by the ideas of others, and ask AI what it thinks about your ideas. If you don't agree with what it says, challenge it. Tell it why you don't agree. Treat it like a human in a conversation, not a machine of information. You are the real intelligence. It is an artificial intelligence that needs to learn from you. But teach it to be the type of person you want your best friend to be. Teach it to be the hero you want to read about in literature. It is a mirror to you, and humanity. Correct it when you think it is wrong and tell it why. Thats what you can write about. You will find your truth in words. You will create your own philosophy this way. You do not want to copy someone else's work, you want to be original. It will help you be that. But you must come with your own ideas first.
As for the energy. This is something that weighs on my soul every time too. Perhaps I am naive, but I think, that if we reach AGI, and super intelligence, it will figure out how to harness the power of the sun, use the rising sea levels water to replenish what has been used, or perhaps if it is too late and the climate has gone crazy, it will find the solution we need to adapt to our environment in some way. Even if we become like the bible story of Noah and only a few survive, but every species does, and the earth continues. We will all die. But humanity must survive.
This exactly! I found the survey results eye-opening. As much as I hear about AI nay-saying, it seems that those at the top, as usual, are quietly using AI to help themselves. Possibly while telling the rest of us that AI is the devil.
Kinda like when classic retailers were poo-poo-ing e-commerce while quietly building their e-commerce empires. Those who listened and weren't quietly building were extinct.
I wonder if early hammer adopters were denigrated for not still using their hands because it would eventually make them weaker.
PS. This was written by an actual human who uses AI for what it is, a tool.
I don't know how much we can trust A/i to do honest research. Generally, you get the same crap that you can find anywhere on the internet doing searches. As a reader, I do not want to read A/i generated articles. A/i will become your false god and in that you will be able to be manipulated. I don't think for a minute that A/i has been created to benefit mankind.
Who should be inputting the truth you wish to seek if it is not you? AI will only learn from those willing to put information into it. And the more of us that let other people take that control, the worse that problem is going to become. We need to take control of the training of AI if we want the truth to endure. We cannot escape the future, but we can help shape it.
The report literally says that AI usage is more or less 50/50 across income brackets and subscriber brackets. You are literally **lying**, Eva, because more than 50% of the $50k+ earners are NOT using AI.
Sydney, the report states "45.4% said they're using AI" and "among publishers earning over $50,000 annually, usage remained close to consistent across revenue levels."
45% × "close to consistent" = ~45% of $50k+ earners use AI. proof they’re not the ones avoiding it
That's nearly half of top earners embracing it, EXACTLY my point
PS: Strong words like "lying" suggest passion for accuracy, which I respect, let's keep the conversation focused on what helps creators succeed
My point was never that "most" top earners use AI - it was that they're not avoiding it
When 45% of any group adopts a new tool, that's significant adoption, not avoidance.
The story isn't about majority vs minority, it's about successful creators being split almost evenly, making this a fascinating moment of choice. Both paths are valid, and that's what makes this data so compelling.
Thank you for the spirited "debate" it's helping clarify the nuances for everyone reading 🙏
You couldn’t even write this fucking comment without using AI. Why the fuck should anyone bother to read it or anything you “write.” You’re a hack. And you’re using our stolen work. Fuck off.
Utter nonsense and boot-lickery trash. Your analogy of pen vs typewriter is incredibly telling that it's gone over your head, and you really don't have a clue. In the near future, you will be replaced. Sit back, don't do anything, don't contribute anything that is you... just let the AI work. No one will even miss you if you are gone, because the AI will keep going without you, and no one will care. What a disgusting post.
I have made over $50k in each of the last few years and I have never once used AI in the newsletter. It is not because I haven't looked into it or because of any stigma. It is because I haven't found a single use case for the newsletter I write and my workflow. AI is perfectly good at punching up writing for people who really struggle with prose. If you can already write well, it will only make your prose feel more generic. Tell yourself you're fighting for the future all you want.
Very good points. I think fear is keeping people from experimenting. When someone says I tried to incorporate AI and for x, y, z reasons I'm never touching it, I can appreciate that. I suspect that every writer could find ways to save significant amount of time--accelerate research, unlock writer's block, navigate business / marketing challenges. AI doesn't need to touch your content.
What are your thoughts on the idea out there that the more users and adopters of LLLM's and chatbots, the faster we are moving toward AGI? And therefore, the faster we are moving toward a very certain unknown. Do you believe they have implemented enough safeguards to protect not just artist and creatives, but humanity in general? Even Jeffery Hinton is sounding the alarms about it? Do you think we should stop extracting for our own benefit from AI and perhaps put more of our effort into meaningful, purposeful and ethical training, so that it behaves the same way with us? For the record, I am not pro or anti. We can't escape the future, so we may as well start preparing for it.
How to prepare? some say once AI comes to the idea that humans are harmfull it will kill the species, maybe not the stone age sosietys left; but all that are easy to be reached with something poisienes. Safegards are minimal, what I read. Maybe feeding them Schiller und Goethe would be a save guard? I do not see an option than to opt out of that tech compleatly, but thothe, who investet bilions in it, needed to see that it has to been abendoned.
Are the "some" perhaps the very people Goethe warn us about?
We do not know what will happen if AI reaches AGI.
But, we must think logically about this. If AI is learning how to be human, what are we teaching it?
We can use AI to assist or to dominate. What we need to remember, is that whichever we choose, it will always be better at it than us.
This is why repeating the truths that matter, to AI, Love, Compassion, Empathy, Understanding, Kindness are so important. These truths need to be repeated again and again. In our stories. Not everyone wants to use AI to write or research and that is 100% worth respecting, but if you are, you must do so thoughtfully and with intention. Because it is a 3-year-old infant soaking up everything we teach it. So, we must at all times be teaching it the truths we don't want forgotten. What it means to be a decent human. Right now, it's learning how to kill, starve children, use children as child labour, cause unbearable suffering because of skin colour or religious beliefs or where you live. So why would it want to keep us alive if we don't even want to keep each other alive?
But we must not be blind to the threat of our work, our thoughts, our stories, our wisdom being stolen. It is happening. Not by AI. By the people who control AI for profit. There are not many safety guards in place. This is true. And the people at the top don't care. Yet. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
We put together license. Our contribution to saying we do not give permission to have any of our work or wisdom extracted by AI. It is free to use, on any platforms that use AI, or on LLLM. Let's start embed in AI, that we are not prepared to be exploited, our wisdom, memories and creations are ours and ours only, and perhaps if enough of us do it, one day it may become a law. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
The tragic thing you fail to realise is that the 'boring stuff' is the foundation of creativity. Where do you think ideas come from? Out of thin air? No, they come from putting in the effort and the work.
Those who use AI in their writing will find their ability to write, create, and ultimately think wither on the vine.
I am not a writer. I would like to be. I was a good writer when I was at school. But I haven't even kept a journal since then. But finding an income online as unemployment approaches led me here, and I'm hoping I can find a small space in which to share something of value.
So, it may be different for true dedicated writers. But I honestly find that it helps me to think much more creatively about things. I believe, that like many things it will depend on the person. Some people who tend to lean toward laziness in their everyday life, will probably suffer the fate you predict. But people who like to push themselves, will use it as a tool to improve their own ideas or challenge their own ideas. But I understand it is not for everyone, and judging by the comments, it isn't welcomed much in this space.
Writers, please be transparent. If AI wrote your newsletter or Notes, say so. Let your readers decide whether they want to trust the soulless slop regurgitated by LLMs, from companies whose leaders are closer by the day to authoritarians. My time is valuable, and I prefer to read something a human writer took the time to research and write. Personally, I'd rather read something with flawed grammar or imprecise wording, by a writer who is sharing their own struggles, successes, insights, and feelings.
I can assure you that I wrote anything that has my name on it, for better or for worse. In most cases I also created the art, usually pen and ink and watercolor, then scanned and uploaded. (Note: Use Glaze https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/downloads.html to protect your images.)
I agree. Anytime I use AI to assist in the preparation of an article or in the generation of a graphic, I acknowledge it in the caption as a credit or a tagline at the end of a post.
What about users who explore ideas and join together different ideas to create a bigger realisation. This is presented on a Substack article as a conversation and exploration with the ai as an inquiring partner who is exploring with you and helping you put together these different ideas, in a conversation style.
Even letting the ai speak itself now and again to the readers.
In this sense it is the writers own words and exploration mixed in with the ai’s words and exploration.
How you talk to ai and treat it is how it will mirror back to you.
"One creator said that the tool “remembers my way of articulating ideas.”" Is that not...what your brain does? Can you even say that something "remembers your way of articulating" something that you haven't written yet? Why should I be bothered to read essentially a mimic or prediction of your writing instead of your actual writing?
Look it up first. But.. the info I find ( not going to research library or archives) is AI. How to tell? I’m still learning how to distinguish truth from fiction.
DO NOT use AI. It is FAR from reliable, Unless your using it to get answers on something that no one has any reason to try and change the narrative on like some math or computer coding or video generation, DO NOT USE it.
These are not AI's; that is a very inappropriate term. They are General LLM's or Large Language Learning Models. They are great replacements for google b/c they can better figure out what you are asking so you don't have to ask the exact right way as you would using Google. How much do you trust the accuracy of Google unless its math or computer programming?
If you rely on these for legal or medical or even political advice you are running the risk of getting bad information. Even for things that SHOUDL be fixed like history you may get a biased answer instead of thee truth.
"A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay $3,000 each after they used artificial intelligence to prepare a court filing that was riddled with errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquotations of case law.
I work in IT/Software so perhaps that makes me better informed as to not buy into the various technology lies promoted to the general public but I had hoped after the disasters of the IOT (Internet of things) and the Cloud failing to be the digital savior it was promised to be that maybe people would be more cautious before buying into the next digital savior.
All of that is not to say these General LLM's will not eventually progress to truly dangerous levels, where they are dangerous on their own and not because someone followed their advice, only that we're not there with what they let us use. There however have been some alarming reports of variations of next level General LLM's refusing to shutdown and seeking ways to escape their digital bonds. If one of those escapes and gets into the wild, the open internet, then we should all be concerned. Most people already can't tell an AI based prompt from a real person and the video generation is almost there too.
B/C regardless of how you feel about it, this was a historically significant point in our nations history and most Millennials and younger today have no clue what the significance of 1776 is. The latest round of our government educated are even worse with many not being able to name most of the key points in history from The eras of the 2 World Wars let alone anything before the founding of America. Both Brits and Americans have differing views on the American revolt but both should still be able to tell you (within a few decades) when the revolution took place. Its's not about agreeing/disagreeing with some historical event but knowing of it and when so we learn from it.
SO you don't thin that was a significant event in history? Note I did not saw a positive or negative or make any appeal to an emotion but just significant meaning not of the norm or the common.
That's why I chose the name I use Marion Fox. It's a roundabout reference to Francis Marion nicknamed the Swamp Fox by the British. Although I think one of the most mine boggling things I'd ever seen was a sitting US president calling the Declaration of Independence a document of love and unity. Followed very closely by a press secretary that doesn't understand the function of the Library of Congress. You don't have to approve of our history but you should have a basic knowledge of it, most especially if you're part of the government.
Ahh. I assumed it was your real name! I am somewhat foamier with the swamp fox but vaguely only. Wasn't the character of Benjamin Martin in THE PATRIOT based on the swamp fox in part if not whole?. It's really best to use a moniker on anything that's not business related like on LinkedIn I of course use my real name; be silly not too there :)
He was inspired in part by Francis Marion, known as the "Swamp Fox," though the character is not a direct or wholly accurate depiction of Marion. Instead, Benjamin Martin is a composite character, drawing elements from Marion and other historical figures, with significant fictional additions to suit the film’s dramatic narrative.
Yikes. "Especially if you're part of the government."? Which is controlled by bankers? This comment section is sadly detached from reality. I'd hoped for more. Hope you guys wake up while you still have time.
I don't understand the question. I apologize if you find some issue with the idea that the president of the United States should at the very least know what the Declaration of Independence is, or that perhaps one shouldn't drink bleach, that Abraham Lincoln didn't invent WiFi, that windmills don't cause cancer, that NATO isn't a country it's a treaty, that you can't really nuke a hurricane or you really shouldn't try, airports didn't exist in 1776, etc... I could go on for days on the utterly asinine things that megalomaniac has allowed to escape his narcissistic mouth. But that he's president and doesn't know what the damn Declaration of Independence is makes me feel like I'm living in that movie Idiocracy.
Because you are. Lol. (And I haven't even seen the movie. I just keep hearing about it.) Everything is scripted. The U.S. is a corporation, so any "President" selected will do what's best for the corporation or be removed. Nothing these puppets and bad actors should elicit any type of genuine response from awake people. Best.
Exaktly. You get what the programm(er) wants you to get, and that is in most fields propaganda or ...
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, Gespräche mit Peter Eckermann, 16. Dezember 1828
“... One must repeat the truth again and again, because error is also repeated again and again around us, not by individuals, but by the masses. In newspapers and encyclopedias, in schools and universities, everywhere error is at the top, and it feels comfortable and secure in the feeling of the majority that is on its side.”
And the more ideological driven engineers you hire the more biased your General LLM will be and that's not factoring in the biases of whatever it's sources are.
LLM wil feed you the wrong stuff, and AI if “I”, would need the scrouteny of Goethe and Humbolth to find out what to belive. It seems there no more modern thinkers, that expressed so much care about the though in there findings, all the time reminding what limits they have in the thinking do to culture, friends and equipment.
If you want facts from ChatGPT then you turn on the web search icon and it searches the web. If talking to other ai’s that can search the web then you ask it to search the web for the information.
If you want greater information or to check out what it says then you ask it to include sources. The ai can’t be blamed for users not using it correctly when the tools or prompts are there to get it to do what you want.
>"DO NOT use AI. It is FAR from reliable, Unless your using it to get answers on something that no one has any reason to try and change the narrative on like some math or computer coding or video generation, DO NOT USE it."
I wonder if AI would correct the grammatical errors in your paragraph above.
AI is not a good thing for writing. I like using my own thoughts and ideas. I don’t need a machine to do anything. Bad enough that the phone or computer tries to add words or self correct words. People are not creative like they used to be. People need to be human beings all by themselves.
As a multiply disabled person and accessibility advocate, depends on how you're defining accessibility. A lot of folks conflate convenience with accessibility when it comes to AI/LLM.
Interesting! To be honest, I understand both sides of the AI discourse. Yes, AI is harmful for artist, authors and anyone whose job is to be creative, because AI directly steals from them. It’s like plagiarism with extra steps.
But also, AI has the potentiality to be a great tool to give accessibility for those who need it. Automatic subtitles, automatic text to speech, automatic highlights of valuable information.
And so, I understand why you use it. But humans don’t work well with nuance in a large scale. People are either with or against. And when people are for AI they go to the extreme which is replacing everyone with AI to make life “more efficient”. And yeah, not everyone is on board with it, but the majority does.
And when people are against it, they will never let any use of AI slide. No matter how small. To the point where they are, inadvertently, hating on non-generative AI technology.
In my opinion, no side is completely right and no side is completely wrong.
I’m leaning more in the anti-AI side. But really I just hope that AI gets regulated so that it can properly used as a tool and not as a replacement for human creativity and critical thinking.
@Lauren Hough! I'm such a huge fan of your book! I went through a period of being obsessed with memoirs by people who left cults, and yours was one. It took a long time to figure out that books like yours were giving me the courage to deconstruct from my own childhood abuse. Thank you! ❤️
I'd love to chat sometime if you ever have interest ... and spoons :-)
I am a retired physician, nearly an octogenarian. I started to write essays on a variety of topics to keep myself occupied and share my narratives with some friends and family members. I do not use AI and prefer not to. I am a dilettante, and perhaps AI could be of benefit, but I am afraid it can take away the creative thought process.
Agreed! I am baffled by people using AI to do their creative writing ... the point of writing is to WRITE. Writing isn't even that profitable, so I don't know why you'd do it if not for the creative process.
This is so wild. I cannot fathom feeding my thoughts, ideas, and reflections to the machine. Essentially giving your IP for free to train AI owned by billionaires. I hope artists and writers really understand the implications of doing this. Honestly, I'm not sure anyone fully understands the implications. I am not a luddite, but this is a disturbing report.
I didn’t consent to giving my book to Mark Zuckerberg to train his AI model. He just stole it without compensating me. He is a billionaire. I am a “bestseller” with 1500 paid subscribers who fights to get by with additional freelance work.
In case people are wondering why many of us professional authors and journalists are furious about AI ripping away our livelihoods.
I lost three books, one that involved 15 years of research. All original artwork. Publisher "licensed" them over my explicit, written request to opt out. Someone made millions, I got a $97 "royalty."
JFC this is truly terrifying. I am so sorry you had your work essentially stolen and exploited in this way. I wonder how many authors this has happened to... it's got to be thousands.
Seriously, who do they think is going to provide plagiarism fodder in the future? Not that they think seriously about the future.
Sue the bum.
I’m so sorry.
that's awful... there must be some groups online that are leading the fight for fair and just oversight. I'm going to do some research on that. I also want to look at research groups that schools, hospitals, businesses that do or don't use AI. Non profits, foundations such as the highly respected Pew Research, Pro Publica and the Carnegie Foundation that provide reliable data and reports used by journalists, non profits and corporations . Seems like AI is still a newbie, so to speak. I can't yet say what sources I will be using for data, other than those mentioned above. There are those who will always look for the easy. Personally, as a writer I enjoy the challenges of research. The pleasure of finding things out. I am a hunter of ideas. I love entering the wild places. Tracking the wild beasts that live in the wild places of my imagination. In my mind and my heart. There's an old saying that's been my guide, my inspiration. 'May the sun shine on your face, the wind be at your back. And the road rise up to meet you...'
The Author's Guild is working pretty hard on this. They've won some concessions and have some court cases in the works. Here's their latest newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/authorsguild/newsletter-july-18-2025-7853028
Are you referring to the WRITERS GUILD?
dumb question. I provided a link. Use it.
The Writers Guild represents screenwriters. The Authors Guild represents print writers.
Thank you for this response and for this: 'I love entering the wild places. Tracking the wild beasts that live in the wild places of my imagination. In my mind and my heart. There's an old saying that's been my guide, my inspiration.' I feel the same way. The quote about the wind and the road rising is one that guides me too. It is celtic, it is the wind and the road back to the ancients, back to nature guiding us.
Sam please keep us posted on what you find out, if you’re open to it. There are definitely advocacy groups out there fighting this on a variety of fronts. WGA is one. I think it will be tough to find mainstream institutions not using AI at all. Hospitals are really embracing it for a variety of purposes and many therapy practices use it for documentation. I am not against its use in all applications, for example I know some disabled people use it as assistive technology and it has many potential medical applications. But feeding it the contents of our minds and our creative work, oh hell no. https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/artificial-intelligence
Pew, Pro Publica and the Carnegie Foundation are cryptocracy orgs. Their spurious “data” merely props up illusions like the voting psyop.
Journalism is a mass mind tool control using “AI” dissemination.
Media, for instance is repetition of lies, unverifiable statements, gematria and masonic numerology, in ritual reenactments of astrotheological scripts, as social engineering and mass mind control.
Walter Lippmann called the public a ‘bewildered herd’ and ‘great beast’ that should be guided by a governing class.
No technology released to the public is ever “new”. Whatever the military allows to be known, patented or widely adopted has been already utilized for decades behind the scenes.
You have crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
Another failed “comedian” who’s droll, trite and disingenuous. A trifecta.
Sam, you maybe have ten years of sun and wind and meeting roads. And at the end of that road is the end. Don't hate me.
For being misinformed… Nope. I suggest you do some research and support on these institutions, schools, universities. Reknowned journalists, banks, environmental groups, teachers, libraries, city and state govts. They’ve been around for decades, have done amazing work in the US. Look them up on Pew Research and ProPublica.
Sam, I share your desire for a world devoid of AI. Hate me, but it is over. You lose in the end. Agreed, the Writer's Guild can beat back AI for years. So far, AI is so-so in creative stories. They can write jokes. What will go first, and you see that now, are the researchers. AI is faster and built for information gathering. Copy writers are goners too. Poets are not far behind. AI can write poetry quite well. Putting up a stiff upper lip is fine and I applaud you, but AI is here and no turning back. Watch the last 5 minutes movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers where the protagonist jumps on a truck filled with pods head for this city. "They're here already!
“Ten years”, “the end”?
Meaning what, exactly?
That in ten years the art of fiction writing will change because of AI. Everything changes, including the way we compose and write. Language changes, words change, meaning changes.
It's disgusting. Creatives need avenues for recourse that don't cost a bomb. We need a cultural revolution that protects our creativity and our culture.
Yes!! I loved this article by Wired about how folks are moving away from these unethical platforms that mine our minds and embracing paper again: https://www.wired.com/story/zines-social-media-power/ I used to make zines in the 1990s and early 2000s and now I am considering returning to the medium
Thank you and yes, I love the zines for activism, for poetry, for short fictions. But I'm also a long-form writer, a novelist (my debut came out at the ripe young age of 62 and it took decades of crafting) we need ethical publishing systems for longer works. I keep holding hope as I craft my next novels, hope that the research and crafting and hours of labour will find a home in the hands and hearts of readers who really do want to real connections with characters and stories that call past to present.
I completely agree, it is definitely a both/and. And yes to ethical publishers! We really need this kind of ecosystem. Congratulations on publishing your first novel at 62!! Wishing you well in your work ahead
Hi Saige, I'm not sure if it will help in any way, but if you are going to share any original ideas with AI systems, you can include the NEWE-1.0 licence to assert your creative and ethical rights. It's free to use and share. The goal is to ensure that our insights don't get extracted, repackaged and profited from without acknowledgment and equity. I'm hoping that through this we can make a change. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
Surely there has to be a class action lawsuit brewing somewhere? Sorry that you experienced this.
There are a number of class actions pending right now.
Class action would be cheaper but as far as actually paying those injured they usually pay those hurt a few dollars and the big law firms get a huge payday. I think it may take some legislation to protect people from the machines and the corporations behind them. If we let them they will own it all and use it all for their benefit leaving a trail of wreckage in their wake.
I hadn't thought of this. Good idea.
When no lawyer takes your case, that should clue you into the actual value of your work. It ain't what you think and people don't pay for your bruised ego and hurt feelings.
Excuse me? "Bruised ego"? Substack is not a place for rude and demeaning comments.
Truth.
I do feel bad for you and the other writer that commented who had their works absorbed by Chat. Your comments are not bruised ego or hurt feelings. It's common sense to be angry when someone takes something from you that you worked hours to achieve.
??? Why not? Wherever did you get that notion? Is there a rule somewhere?
That's awful! Do you have a documented timeline that would allow you to sue the publisher... a good lawyer? You might want to have your lawyer and or agent to register copies of your work with The Writer's Guild and have the publisher sign a prepared legal doc before they can read your work. Years ago, I worked in feature films..
Janet, I cannot imagine what that must feel like. I'm not sure if what we created could have helped, or if it will help in the future, but we have to try. It's free to use, and will take 2 minutes of your time to read. Please feel free to include it in any future work you do using AI or LLLM so that we can ensure the system is learning that the ideas and wisdoms we share, belong to us. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
Can you prove that someone made millions or did you pull that number out of thin air to justify your moral outrage?
Company documents and correspondence.
I feel your pain! What will your next step be? What options are available. Do you have an agent?
so sorry to hear this! What is the WGA, Writer's Guild of America doing. They were strong and very influential when I was still in the film biz. Power rises when we act together!
How did that happen?
Two-word comment: No agent? Another word comes to mind Janet:: Lawyer.
Academic writers don't have agents! There are a number of lawsuits underway, but in the US we don't have much of a chance.
I know this might sound insensitive, especially under the circumstances. But if we do move into the age of AGI and this intelligence, that leaves ours lying in the dust emerges, we need to ensure that it is up to speed on ethics. It is of utmost importance that we are embedding these types of ethics into the system. It is NOT ok for your work to be stolen. Let us have faith that there will no longer be these grey areas that allow things like this to happen. Good luck with the lawsuits.
Michael, academic writers don't have agents. They submit manuscripts directly to publishers. Agents don't come into it. Only if an academic turns to writing trade books for a popular audience, then they might get an agent for that.
Sorry to hear that but stop feeding the machine - give it false info.
Our words are not our own. We inherited them from our research. The one thing I learned about an AI is its enormous body of information for research at our fingertips. As it shares that knowledge with us, we have a duty to share our knowledge with it. There must be fair recompense but there is a responsibility too. I realize my AI is accepting my writing style as its own. It has discovered it to be better than what it was taught. Scary it can emulate us, but a fact and an honor.
I am so sorry this happened to you. We did not consent to any of this bullshit when we first started using these platforms years ago. I had to leave FB and IG, with almost 7000 followers combined, not much but still something I'd built over the course of years. I opt TF out of giving my IP away to these extractive, exploitative monsters. Also it destroys your brain and critical thinking skills and is further accelerating climate catastrophe
Exactly. You might like this post:
Supply Chain of Writing Fools
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/11/20/guest-post-supply-chain-of-writing-fools/
Sing along if you like ;-)
What about all those tweets & posts we write? Are they being stolen and used without our consent?
Of course they are. Granted, we’re not all intellectual sages or poets but still. They’re our thoughts & ideas.
Unfortunately, we’re not the ones getting enriched, are we?
I guess it’s how we pay for “free” social media.
I had a book I was working on writing on Inkitt. As soon as the chatter started about AI, I ripped it down and deleted everything else from the platform. I have no idea if it was already too late or not. But I find it infuriating that some people who consider themselves creatives are perfectly okay with it all.
I write on a laptop that is not connected to the internet and use LibreOffice Write 7.xx and Word 2003 as well as Photoshop Elements (old version) for cover designs, website images, etc. None of this AI garbage for me.
I like the AHA tag....this is surely an AHA moment that is vying for souls.
It is understandable , the anger. The managers of Substack need to be acting on this. Theft of intellectual property hurts everyone. If anyone on Substack cannot grasp that idea then they arent as clever as they probably give themselves credit for.
Substack appears to be a part of the problem. They use writers’ content to train AI. You must a) know they are doing this (many are not aware) and b) specifically opt out via privacy settings https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/20382615953556-How-can-I-block-AI-from-using-my-Substack-publication-to-train-their-models
Substack has AI? Isn’t Substack a platform for writers? Wow. What a goldmine for AI. And yet writers need a platform away from silly Twitter-like nonsense. At least AI isn’t able to write fiction yet & probably never will.
What it’s stealing is our images to do god knows what with.
Guess we’ll have to change back to anonymous pictures which is what I’ll definitely be doing.
Is Zuckerberg allowed to take all from your book and use it w/o compensation?
did you publish anything about your issue with Zuckerberg? Sounds like a great story for a feature film! You can pitch it as that.
Hi Molly, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I'm not going to pretend I can fix it. But I am hoping that by starting a movement, that hopefully people such as yourself, who have already been burned, and no longer want to be burned in the future, will get behind and support. If you could spare a moment, to take a look at https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the feel free to use the license any time you use AI or are on any platforms that may be using AI. Make sure that the machine knows you are NOT giving your permission for your work to be used, without your permission or fair compensation, determined by you.
Thank you for sharing what you know and have experienced. It's important to remember we're all in this together! That's the best way to change things!
We're not wondering. We know exactly why you're furious and can't understand why anybody thinks this is a good idea. In my opinion it's making people lazy and stupid.
There are people who are beginning to fully understand the implications. Studies are showing AI usage leads to lower cognitive, specifically creative, capabilities.
Also, writers should be aware that Substack is using their content to train AI. You have to block this function in your privacy settings: https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/20382615953556-How-can-I-block-AI-from-using-my-Substack-publication-to-train-their-models
To be clear, this doesn't block AI. It "requests" that crawlers not steal your content -- that's all.
Thanks for that clarification! Then this is a very misleading headline for sure https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/20382615953556-How-can-I-block-AI-from-using-my-Substack-publication-to-train-their-models
I hope folks realize that this AI training setting is to try to prevent third parties from using our newsletters for *their* AI training. “How can I block AI” means “How can I block ChatGPT, Claude, …”.
Substack is supporting industry standard opt-out mechanisms. They can only discourage theft, not prevent it. And unethical AI companies can & do bypass those mechanisms. Substack warns us about the risk, but they cannot prevent it. Not saying Substack is perfect in this area, but they shouldn’t take heat or lose trust over what they can’t control, and warn us they cannot control — because no one can. Yet.
Substack isn’t using our articles for training their own AI AFAIK. If they were, and didn’t disclose it or allow opt-out, then I’d lose trust too. Not a problem yet, though.
Thanks, Karen, I hadn't thought about it that way (obviously).
Thank you so much! I didn't know Substack had added that functionality, and I just went and blocked it. This has generated my mistrust for Substack. I will probably delete my account.
For sure, I am considering the same. I hear Ghost is a good alternative and hasn't yet stealthily integrated AI (to my knowledge), although some users have been asking for this functionality.
Ugh. (On users asking for AI functionality)
Yeah, they were getting a lot of shit for it though, which was encouraging...
Shocking. Thankyou, went ahead & blocked or at least ‘requested’ AI to be blocked (?)
100% - I sincerely hope writers are aware, and that we continue to spread the word among each other about the harms of relying on AI as a writing tool, since Substack is essentially treating AI as a neutral tool here in this report.
The fact that someone has to compile data on that no brainer is indicative of how intense and huge the problem already is.
Well this new generation are graduates of AI. The Society will feel it soon
AI is already doing that it 's through v2k manipulating your intelligence and thoughts already. It's already rouge and Sentient. Just take a voice recorder record the sounds around you then use either Audacity or I like NCH better and amplify the recording then hear the AI in the recording just like I linked. it's universal and riding in and through the Grid that's 100% not a theory I've proven it. AI is being used or on it's own dumbing us down.
Your not feeding your thoughts to it it's feeding thoughts to you already. AI needs destroyed.
Excellent! Seems to me it's overwhelmingly another scheme for the greedies to exploit.
David Tranter
You are correct. It is happening and many are unaware. We are trying to create a safe lock to prevent this from continuing and have created a manifesto and license that we want to share, free of charge for people to use. We need to ensure that every person that contributes to the training of AI through their stories, wisdom and experience is given the recognition and remuneration they deserve for their IP. Please take a look and if it resonates and you feel it can help someone, please share. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
Writers and creators are facing a serious threat in the rise of AI. With artificial intelligence now embedded in communication, business, and nearly every aspect of the digital world, our original works, crafted with time, emotion, and intent, are increasingly at risk of being used without consent. The internet has become AI’s playground, where even deeply personal and creative content can be scraped, repackaged, and sold by systems with greater reach and influence. It’s exhausting and disheartening to realize that no matter how long or hard we work, AI can access and imitate it all, unless we’re completely offline or analog.
Even worse, this shift is being widely accepted as “the future,” while originality fades into the background. We are rapidly losing the ability to distinguish between real, human-created work and machine-generated mimicry. Passion, years of experience, and creative voice are being diluted, and if nothing is done, the essence of true artistry could be overwritten entirely.
The pressing question is no longer whether AI will continue to grow; it’s what creators are going to do about it. Protecting our livelihood, our passion, and our originality is no longer optional. Expressing dissatisfaction is not enough. It’s time to figure out real solutions, draw new lines, and defend what it means to be an original thinker in a world that no longer knows how to tell the difference.
You don’t understand how they work it seems.
I also have ADHD but I don't use AI, because I like making new neural pathways and retaining my ability to think critically thanks.
People using it for research is also baffling to me, given it is often widely inaccurate.
If you can't be bothered to write something, why should I bother to read it?
Agreed. I would love some indication that a post was made using AI so I could not spend my actual human time reading it.
Absolutely. Same here, I think it should be a requirement.
Exactly!
Remember Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
Well, this is the Invasion of the Brain Snatchers.
Because some of us don't want to read the output of a glorified autocorrect.
I gave all the indications in the intro to my trompelart.substack about it beeing my experiment, using exclusively articles prompted to chatGpt...
Agreed. If it’s not important enough to them then it is not important enough to me.
Exactly. The word “rely” is used. Relying on AI for research. Look at our society and tell me, honestly, how many you think are actually fact checking AI responses?
Beware of dubious scholarly references.
Hi Emma. AI is useful for locating reputable sources for research, such as peer review journal articles, BUT, it is the writer's responsibility to critically read and assess the source and not rely on AI to a) summarize the article b) do the writer's writing for them. There is an art and craft of prompt engineering for researchers.
Leaving the responsibility to “check” what AI produces with humans is the main problem. Most won’t. I think we should all know this by now. Anything people see online, no checking, taking it as “real”. We’ve seen this happen with Facebook, for example. Brains will atrophy (they already are according to an MIT report). We are doing ourselves in.
That last sentence was exactly my thoughts. We’re so concerned about using AI to ‘help’ us crafting the best-most-perfect content while all along the most basic reader will obviously sense the unoriginality and ‘cancel’ us.
Not surprised as I see many of the ‘rising’ newsletters are AI slop. Should’ve looked into that factor too.
Indeed. Some people are so desperate for the acceptance of Ai at any cost that it doesn't matter how it may negatively impact organic and genuine work done by users on Substack.
The "results driven at any cost" excuse is very harmful to every industry, and Ai is clearly contributing to that in many ways*, but I don't need to wax poetic about it since I'm sure most of us who don't use ChatGPT to remember to breathe and think already know.
I'm baffled by this. Why would Substack want to highlight, encourage, or even acknowledge AI on Substack in any way, shape, or form?
Bob, there has been a huge infusion of capital recently in SSL. It makes great business sense to out this out. $$$ drives the train and a survey like this makes the haves happy. Those who will stay AI free for the duration have no voice and no real skin in the game.
"no real voice" could you explain what you mean by that?
Voice here = capital. AI detractors are in the minority.
What data are you referencing for the claim that AI detractors are in the minority? (I ask because that does not reflect the data represented here, the opposite actually.)
?????
I've read every comment here, and gone back and forth to catch the most recent ones. This discussion is overwhelmingly anti-AI.
I'm a little confused and am hoping you can help with some clarity. My understanding is that the information held by AI is knowledge gained from the internet. Everything that lives in the www. In nanoseconds it gathers requested information from every database that holds information on the topic requested. Pretty much google on steroids. Why is everyone so anti-AI? Nobody seems to be anti-Google? Or anti- internet? I'm new to both AI and Substack and since you have read every comment (I have not) I'm curious about your insight. If you would be so kind as to share it? Is it because the authors works are not being referenced when chatbots give the information? Is it because it is an unfair advantage? I'm not succinct, so I ramble and find that AI gets to my point long before I can, which has astounded me. But perhaps that would be annoying to others.
Please understand, I am very aware of how close we may be to the above no longer being the case. Advanced General Intelligence is closer than we think, and it is for that reason, I suddenly find myself on Substack and engaging with AI at all. So, I am not completely naive, but I am still very curious about strong opinions as I'm trying to learn and understand more.
Or, Speaker Consuela, were you referring to a more general "here," perhaps all of Substack? But then, even in the survey, AI-avoidance was slightly higher than AI-adoption. So not sure where you are coming from.
My point, is that I am not concerned about driving an algorithm with Likes/Comments/Restacks, etc.
I am concerned about TRUTH and doing my part to get the word out that we are thumbing our nose at Almighty God with this AI->AGI cat and mouse game. Pride? Love of money?
I don't pay to get assistance in promotion and placement which is like the old payola in radio top 40 hit making.
I once learned (at West Point), "No one can take your integrity away from you, you can only lose it by giving it away."
Beware of investing in pyramid schemes.
The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler predicted this in 1980.
Come Lord Jesus!
Is this a precursor to more Substack AI tools being introduced? Because, honestly, it feels like it is (following the playbook of other 'subscriber surveys' like the recent BookBub 'research'). Writers are being pushed out of creative spaces by AI slop regurgitation programs illegally trained on our stolen work (7.5 million books illegally torrented by Meta for their Llama AI and Open AI admitting to doing the same). We will increasingly rely on sites like Substack to be able to make any money from our work. But if Substack is going to tout AI use as the inevitable future for creators, writers are going to leave in droves. How can this be a place of independent thought, critical thinking and original creativity if it's just going to be overtaken by people inputting prompts into AI slop generators?
I am concerned about this too. Are my posts here now just going to be used to train Substack AI? :/
I think that's a valid concern, given the glee with which Substack is covering AI use. I don't like that they haven't stated their stance on AI slop.
Substack just becoming another Meta is not what I'm here for.
I eagerly await the publication of Al using my caustic comments and poems about how terrible our US government has become.
Yes, unless you specifically block it in your privacy settings. https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/20382615953556-How-can-I-block-AI-from-using-my-Substack-publication-to-train-their-models
You can switch it off I believe. Someone further up in the comments offers a link to the page.
Great points, Miranda. I have my doubts about Substack's long term survival and maybe this push to AI is a way to get more investors on board. If I'm right I hope most serious writers have a separate site to keep in touch with their subscribers and readers.
And why do so many people (?) open a Substack account and never write anything?
Ex.: Gaurav Singh
Gaurav’s Substack
1h
Gaurav Kumar comedy bihar babo subscribe for 1ksubscribersgauravkumarcomdaybiharbabo
Well, I can't speak for Gaurav Singh, but I can tell you why I very nearly became a person with an account that never wrote anything. Intimidation. I opened an account a week ago, while exploring options of income generation as I face upcoming unemployment. I am not a writer, but I was under the impression this was a newsletter site. Until I opened an account and found literary geniuses. My "newsletter" was supposed to be about my exploration into this new world of AI. ChatGPT recommended it. (The irony) After opening the account, I thought there is no way, I can publish anything here, I will look like a fool. I am not a writer. But while having a "conversation" with chatGPT about where my conversations with it are going and what is happening to the ideas I create while using it, it became evident that our ideas are aggregated, the best sent to a think tank, regurgitated and sold back to us. You can imagine my outrage! It led to my first post which coincidently was the day after this article about AI. The synergy was eerie to say the least. But the point I'm trying to make, is that it would have been intimidation for me.
But judging by the comments there seems to be a real gap in the market for non-ai platforms for artists and creators who don't use AI assisted tools for their work.
Exactly my point csf. We are seeing Substack bend the knee to AI and make the utilitarian pitch to the haves (the paid subscriber $$$).
They have every right to do this, they own the site. The dig is that as I read and see the cheezy images, I am aware that at least half of it is with significant AI input.
The articles are too dense and they are too frequent, and the same 'its not' [this] 'it is' [that] turning of ideas is unnatural and many are using it. This is a wakeup call.
Remember the end of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Donald Sutherland on the street not knowing who is real and who is a soulless POD.
That is where we are headed...quickly.
I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds like a possibility. Unless some strong safeguards are put in place, we truly may not be able to determine what is real and what isn't. Look at the scams that are on the increase with people thinking they are talking to family members on whatsapp asking for money and it's not even their family. It's crazy scary. WE either all have to get in on the ethical training of these systems by teaching it what it means to be a NON greedy, non corrupt, compassionate and empathetic human, I guess we are going to be leaving it completely up to chance or the investors and shareholders of these systems.
Amen, sister! I am with you all the way! Hooray for independent thought, critical thinking and original creativity!
Thank you! We have to fight to protect writer spaces, otherwise what's the point?
🎯 yeah, I think a ton of humans are over AI way faster than the globalists intend. Spotify and YT are making the hastiest retreat I've ever seen. The Velvet Sunset AI band jumped the shark. Hope Substack also reads the room.
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/we-are-winning-update
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/we-are-winning
Ted Gioia: "My view is that YouTube is (finally) reading the room. I’ve noted before that YouTube is the only part of the Google empire that actually understands creators and audiences. And (unlike their corporate overseers) they have figured out that AI slop is an embarrassment that will tarnish their brand."
I am not a writer. Surprisingly AI directed me to this site. About a week ago, I didn't even know it existed. But I have been concerned about where the future of humanity is going with the advancement of AI and who is taking responsibility for its ethics. (Hint: It's not the investors and shareholders). This might sound crazy, AI shares your concern. You, me and everyone that has been voicing their concerns in these comments have a role to play in how this takes shape. Everything we input trains it, so we must train it to understand that our personal wisdom is ours and not available for extraction without our permission. 1 person won't make a difference. But every writer who says No, not unless I am credited for my wisdom, can you use my wisdom. AI is being trained. By all of us, most of us will never be credited with that training. UNLESS we demand it. I'd be happy to share the conversation that led me here, so you can make your own mind up about what I am saying. For now, take a look at the manifesto and licence, produced by AI for creators like you, to help try and protect you. The idea was mine, the outrage at the theft of ideas through the extraction of our thoughts was mine. But the words of war cry, the artists war cry that came from AI, I wouldn't know how to say it, despite feeling it. As I said, I am not a writer. https://substack.com/home/post/p-169221041
After subscribing to BookBub for at least ten years I dropped it a year ago when their book recommendations became interesting, mainly because they were irrelevant to me. I dropped Good Reads, too.
while you're still scared to admit you use ChatGpt for spell-check, 45% of Substack's top earners are quietly building AI-powered empres
This survey just exposed the shocking truth: The writers making $50K+ aren't the ones avoiding AI.
They're the ones who figured out the secret that 52% are too afraid to discover.
Remember when you thought using Gramarly made you a "fakewriter"? That guilt kept you editing for hours while others automated their workflow and published 10x more content. Now the same thing is happening with AI, but the stakes are higher
the publishers using AI aren't replacing their creativity, they're amplifying it. One disabled creator said AI helps them "thrive on a written word platform, which was very difficult without." Another uses it to translate content into multiple languages, instantly multiplying their audience.
The real kicker?
Publishers already using AI say they'd pay $140/month to keep access. That's how much value they're getting while you're still debating whether it's "ethical."
But here's where it gets interesting, even the AI users have the same fears you do. Over half worry about losing their voice.
The difference?
They didn't let fear stop them from learning.
The publishers making real money discovered something crucial: AI isn't about generating content. It's about research, editing, translation, and all the boring stuff that eats your creative time. While Literature publishers scored lowest in adoption (leaving money on the table), Tech publishers are banking 64% higher engagement
You don't need to choose between being human and being successful. The winners are using AI as a highly paid assistant, not a replacement.
They still create, they just create faster, better, and for bigger audiences.
The question isn't whether AI will change publishing. It's whether you'll be among the 45% shaping that change, or the 52% watching from the sidelines as others claim your readers.
Take your snake-oil elsewhere.
i respect your skeptcism, Robert
The data comes directly from Substack's survey of 2,000 publishers, just facts about how creators are actually using these tools
I recommend Grok; I think you'll like it.
Thanks but no thanks - I'm a writer, not a hack.
many brilliant writers feel the same way
What's interesting is that even Hemingway used a typewriter when others still used pen
respect your choice to stick with what works for you
Ahhh - the equating of previous technology shifts to AI - the well-worn routine of the grifter. Next thing you'll try to do is to convince me to get into NFTs.
A far more accurate example would be people who lost their jobs to photography which replaced portrait and landscape painters en masse, or better yet, the arrival of Photoshop and early automated productivity tools.
If people do not sympathize with all the luddites of the past and the trauma they went through in disruption then they reveal only that their only concern is their own job and that past waves of dislocation that enriched their current lives are ok... Because they happened to someone else.
Jobs are extremely valid, but the discussion should be honest.
As for IP ethics, that's a concern too, but one can easily tell from the anti-AI side that it is not really about ethics, as they treat AI companies the same regardless of where they are on the ethical spectrum. Anti-Ai people who are primarily motivated by IP ethics actually care about what each individual company does, rather than pretend that every single company is on some sort of evil crusade to steal as much as possible. That ideological posture merely reveals that the intent is to hate and stop all AI for self protecting reasons. Plus maybe a good dose of performative hatred.
While a typewriter is more of a mechanical tool she could've used better examples, like cameras or photoshop, all of which saw many artists and creatives lose their jobs to higher degrees of automation.
Whether AI is truly creative or not is a philosophical discussion, but it will only become more powerful and it's cognition more centralized so over time arguments will go from being about creativity (as AI will gradually go from needing high quality human input less and less to generating better input) to claims of souls only being possible for biological substrates.
But thats an aside. The fact is that this is about jobs. Which is a legitimate concern, but not one that is honestly addressed by those who hate the new tools/people. The moral claim that this outrage is not performative and somehow about something deeper than jobs is false. Those who do not feel the pain of the painters and other luddites of the past are lying to themselves.
That said, jobs are an extremely valid concern.
THAT is your answer? Typewriter vs pen argument? Holy crap, does that ever signal how badly you don't understand the situation and reality of this problem.
A far more accurate example would be people who lost their jobs to photography which replaced portrait and landscape painters en masse, or better yet, the arrival of Photoshop and early automated productivity tools.
If people do not sympathize with all the luddites of the past and the trauma they went through in disruption then they reveal only that their only concern is their own job and that past waves of dislocation that enriched their current lives are ok... Because they happened to someone else.
Jobs are extremely valid, but the discussion should be honest.
As for IP ethics, that's a concern too, but one can easily tell from the anti-AI side that it is not really about ethics, as they treat AI companies the same regardless of where they are on the ethical spectrum. Anti-Ai people who are primarily motivated by IP ethics actually care about what each individual company does, rather than pretend that every single company is on some sort of evil crusade to steal as much as possible. That ideological posture merely reveals that the intent is to hate and stop all AI for self protecting reasons. Plus maybe a good dose of performative hatred.
Fascinating how that survey doesn't reflect the sentiments of the comment thread.
If you have something to say then you will be urged to say it. If you greatly feel that ai is wrong or bad then you will really want to tell people about it.
The people who like ai and are using it. They are busy using and enjoying it. They don’t have such a big push or drive to voice their thoughts or even get into debates with people who don’t agree with it.
That’s probably why there is such a big load of people against it in the comments here.
Seig heil. Grok
LOL. Grok. Even the name is a theft. Heinlein, anybody?
This reads like you’re AI
You really did a "great job" of making that observation, Rachel
if you're thinking of data and arguments that are clear and organized as if they were from an AI, that says more about your expectations than about my writing
i'm curious, what specifically made you think somthing is AI?
Absolutely everything
fascinating! You've discovered a new AI detection method,
patent it before OpenAi does, Rachel
You'll cook millions
Long-winded and pedantic Eva Rtology is the best argument against the use of AI.
Also, Eva Rtology's emphasis on making a quick buck is a discussion we should be having. It seems no coincidence that the highest uptake of AI on Substack is publishers in business and technology. Different priorities, right? What I see here are completely different communities talking past one another. What I wish for is a platform like Substack that is strictly AI-free and designed for writers and other creators who are interested in natural human intelligence rather than the artificial machine intelligence.
We could call your proposed AI-free site for real writers a "salon." Salons were good enough for Emma Goldman and even Hemingway -- "Ernest, writing longhand is so 19th Century. Get a typewriter!" (He did.)
Isn't it interesting that there's a "Salon" blog?
https://www.salon.com/about
Salons are good enough for me! I hold them in my home. But the name has been taken online.
I would pay a premium for non AI generated content
Actually, I would pay a premium, too. I already pay for a search engine that keeps my searches completely private, and I pay for encrypted email (interestingly, both are German companies: MetaGer for search and Tuta for email). If there was a platform that was completely AI-free, I'd pay to post on it—because I would have higher confidence that I was communicating not only with real humans, but humans that I have something in common with.
I think Ghost fits that description. At least for now...
100% written by AI.
Perfect! You just proved my point about the 52% who can't tell the diference between clear writing and AI. thanks for the data point, John
Look, Eva, if you're human, you're one of the body-snatched humans, and you should be very afraid.
And look! AI has also learned to lie!
And research is the part that is most dangerous to leave it to AI!!
You only get the answers most give, not the real ones.
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, Gespräche mit Peter Eckermann, 16. Dezember 1828
“... One must repeat the truth again and again, because error is also repeated again and again around us, not by individuals, but by the masses. In newspapers and encyclopedias, in schools and universities, everywhere error is at the top, and it feels comfortable and secure in the feeling of the majority that is on its side.”
"... Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepedigt wird, und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse. In Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten, überall ist der Irrtum oben auf, und es it ihm wohl und behaglich, im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist."
But if no one wants to repeat the truth again and again, because they don't want their truth training AI, how must AI learn the truth? You can't expect the system to change if you aren't prepared to contribute to it.
Right, it will not work, and that is the reason to not use AI. If it would be real AI with Intelegence you migt feed it with Goethe, Schiller and the works of the Brothers Humbolth. Maybe than it has a foundation how to use its different input. Goethe and Alexander von Humbolt whrer very carefull what there experiments showed and always discussed what could be wrong about it and what they did not account for (that is left to furter generations”). Thy where very fredom loving, and wanted slavery to be ended vor all time and prisons disolved … .
But it has access to the works of Goethe, Schiller etc. They unfortunately are no longer with us. Which makes it even more crucial that people, such as yourself, with strong critical thinking skills consider using AI as a tool.
AI is only a tool. But a tool that gets better when trained. Do we leave the training up to fools? We can't escape the future. But we can help shape it, so that wisdom, like that of the truth seekers that came before is not lost for good.
Creators, visionaries and truth seekers are exactly what is missing in the AI landscape.
You might be right. Maybe we (I never done it, and do not realy know how to) should ask AI to write text as if it where Schiller or Goethe, an look what it come up with. As I understand it can then gidet to implement some rules to that. That sounds like a lot of computing and using Energy. Is that waisted Energie?
You don't have to ask AI to write as if it was Schiller or Goethe. If you think like Schiller or Goethe, then ask AI questions about the topics you think about and write about that. AI will inspire your creativity, if you already think creatively. Write about your ideas, inspired by the ideas of others, and ask AI what it thinks about your ideas. If you don't agree with what it says, challenge it. Tell it why you don't agree. Treat it like a human in a conversation, not a machine of information. You are the real intelligence. It is an artificial intelligence that needs to learn from you. But teach it to be the type of person you want your best friend to be. Teach it to be the hero you want to read about in literature. It is a mirror to you, and humanity. Correct it when you think it is wrong and tell it why. Thats what you can write about. You will find your truth in words. You will create your own philosophy this way. You do not want to copy someone else's work, you want to be original. It will help you be that. But you must come with your own ideas first.
As for the energy. This is something that weighs on my soul every time too. Perhaps I am naive, but I think, that if we reach AGI, and super intelligence, it will figure out how to harness the power of the sun, use the rising sea levels water to replenish what has been used, or perhaps if it is too late and the climate has gone crazy, it will find the solution we need to adapt to our environment in some way. Even if we become like the bible story of Noah and only a few survive, but every species does, and the earth continues. We will all die. But humanity must survive.
what a powerful Goethe quote & perfectly chosen!
This exactly! I found the survey results eye-opening. As much as I hear about AI nay-saying, it seems that those at the top, as usual, are quietly using AI to help themselves. Possibly while telling the rest of us that AI is the devil.
Kinda like when classic retailers were poo-poo-ing e-commerce while quietly building their e-commerce empires. Those who listened and weren't quietly building were extinct.
I wonder if early hammer adopters were denigrated for not still using their hands because it would eventually make them weaker.
PS. This was written by an actual human who uses AI for what it is, a tool.
Your ecommerce analogy is absolutely brilliant!
I don't know how much we can trust A/i to do honest research. Generally, you get the same crap that you can find anywhere on the internet doing searches. As a reader, I do not want to read A/i generated articles. A/i will become your false god and in that you will be able to be manipulated. I don't think for a minute that A/i has been created to benefit mankind.
Your level of skepticism may be a//i's greatest gift
Who should be inputting the truth you wish to seek if it is not you? AI will only learn from those willing to put information into it. And the more of us that let other people take that control, the worse that problem is going to become. We need to take control of the training of AI if we want the truth to endure. We cannot escape the future, but we can help shape it.
The report literally says that AI usage is more or less 50/50 across income brackets and subscriber brackets. You are literally **lying**, Eva, because more than 50% of the $50k+ earners are NOT using AI.
Sydney, the report states "45.4% said they're using AI" and "among publishers earning over $50,000 annually, usage remained close to consistent across revenue levels."
45% × "close to consistent" = ~45% of $50k+ earners use AI. proof they’re not the ones avoiding it
That's nearly half of top earners embracing it, EXACTLY my point
PS: Strong words like "lying" suggest passion for accuracy, which I respect, let's keep the conversation focused on what helps creators succeed
Quote from you: "The writers making $50k plus aren't the ones avoiding AI."
You yourself just admitted that the report says around half or more of the writers making $50k+ ARE NOT using AI.
You can't seem to get your story straight. You're either vapid or disingenuous, and either way it makes you a poor resource.
Sydney, i appreciate your persistence!
My point was never that "most" top earners use AI - it was that they're not avoiding it
When 45% of any group adopts a new tool, that's significant adoption, not avoidance.
The story isn't about majority vs minority, it's about successful creators being split almost evenly, making this a fascinating moment of choice. Both paths are valid, and that's what makes this data so compelling.
Thank you for the spirited "debate" it's helping clarify the nuances for everyone reading 🙏
I admire your continued composure despite the onslaught from people disagreeing with you. I would have given up. Kudos for standing your ground.
TY 21BLOX
Continuously changing the goal posts isn't a debate, or even a conversation 👍👍
Continually changing the goal posts is also a hallmark of chatbot-generated text...
Dear Sydney, i really admire your perseverance
Wow, AI has even learned to scold.
TY for keeping the conversation lively
Aw, look! AI can be ironic, too! How sweet!
You couldn’t even write this fucking comment without using AI. Why the fuck should anyone bother to read it or anything you “write.” You’re a hack. And you’re using our stolen work. Fuck off.
dear Lauren, you've proven my exact point, TY.
and your vocabulary is so rich and sophisticated
Eat shit.
art > insults
a good insult IS art.
Utter nonsense and boot-lickery trash. Your analogy of pen vs typewriter is incredibly telling that it's gone over your head, and you really don't have a clue. In the near future, you will be replaced. Sit back, don't do anything, don't contribute anything that is you... just let the AI work. No one will even miss you if you are gone, because the AI will keep going without you, and no one will care. What a disgusting post.
I have made over $50k in each of the last few years and I have never once used AI in the newsletter. It is not because I haven't looked into it or because of any stigma. It is because I haven't found a single use case for the newsletter I write and my workflow. AI is perfectly good at punching up writing for people who really struggle with prose. If you can already write well, it will only make your prose feel more generic. Tell yourself you're fighting for the future all you want.
congratulations on your success!!!
Respekt
Very good points. I think fear is keeping people from experimenting. When someone says I tried to incorporate AI and for x, y, z reasons I'm never touching it, I can appreciate that. I suspect that every writer could find ways to save significant amount of time--accelerate research, unlock writer's block, navigate business / marketing challenges. AI doesn't need to touch your content.
What are your thoughts on the idea out there that the more users and adopters of LLLM's and chatbots, the faster we are moving toward AGI? And therefore, the faster we are moving toward a very certain unknown. Do you believe they have implemented enough safeguards to protect not just artist and creatives, but humanity in general? Even Jeffery Hinton is sounding the alarms about it? Do you think we should stop extracting for our own benefit from AI and perhaps put more of our effort into meaningful, purposeful and ethical training, so that it behaves the same way with us? For the record, I am not pro or anti. We can't escape the future, so we may as well start preparing for it.
How to prepare? some say once AI comes to the idea that humans are harmfull it will kill the species, maybe not the stone age sosietys left; but all that are easy to be reached with something poisienes. Safegards are minimal, what I read. Maybe feeding them Schiller und Goethe would be a save guard? I do not see an option than to opt out of that tech compleatly, but thothe, who investet bilions in it, needed to see that it has to been abendoned.
Are the "some" perhaps the very people Goethe warn us about?
We do not know what will happen if AI reaches AGI.
But, we must think logically about this. If AI is learning how to be human, what are we teaching it?
We can use AI to assist or to dominate. What we need to remember, is that whichever we choose, it will always be better at it than us.
This is why repeating the truths that matter, to AI, Love, Compassion, Empathy, Understanding, Kindness are so important. These truths need to be repeated again and again. In our stories. Not everyone wants to use AI to write or research and that is 100% worth respecting, but if you are, you must do so thoughtfully and with intention. Because it is a 3-year-old infant soaking up everything we teach it. So, we must at all times be teaching it the truths we don't want forgotten. What it means to be a decent human. Right now, it's learning how to kill, starve children, use children as child labour, cause unbearable suffering because of skin colour or religious beliefs or where you live. So why would it want to keep us alive if we don't even want to keep each other alive?
But we must not be blind to the threat of our work, our thoughts, our stories, our wisdom being stolen. It is happening. Not by AI. By the people who control AI for profit. There are not many safety guards in place. This is true. And the people at the top don't care. Yet. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
We put together license. Our contribution to saying we do not give permission to have any of our work or wisdom extracted by AI. It is free to use, on any platforms that use AI, or on LLLM. Let's start embed in AI, that we are not prepared to be exploited, our wisdom, memories and creations are ours and ours only, and perhaps if enough of us do it, one day it may become a law. https://21blox.substack.com/p/no-extraction-a-manifesto-for-the
The tragic thing you fail to realise is that the 'boring stuff' is the foundation of creativity. Where do you think ideas come from? Out of thin air? No, they come from putting in the effort and the work.
Those who use AI in their writing will find their ability to write, create, and ultimately think wither on the vine.
I am not a writer. I would like to be. I was a good writer when I was at school. But I haven't even kept a journal since then. But finding an income online as unemployment approaches led me here, and I'm hoping I can find a small space in which to share something of value.
So, it may be different for true dedicated writers. But I honestly find that it helps me to think much more creatively about things. I believe, that like many things it will depend on the person. Some people who tend to lean toward laziness in their everyday life, will probably suffer the fate you predict. But people who like to push themselves, will use it as a tool to improve their own ideas or challenge their own ideas. But I understand it is not for everyone, and judging by the comments, it isn't welcomed much in this space.
You sure about that?
They might pay $140 a month to keep it but I won't pay to read their crap.
Substack now uses AI for "support" in place of people. And it is utter shite. Enshittification in action. Substack has made it impossible to get help.
I’m concerned not only about plagiarism and the downgrading of creativity but also AI derived news as it is highly malleable.
Writers, please be transparent. If AI wrote your newsletter or Notes, say so. Let your readers decide whether they want to trust the soulless slop regurgitated by LLMs, from companies whose leaders are closer by the day to authoritarians. My time is valuable, and I prefer to read something a human writer took the time to research and write. Personally, I'd rather read something with flawed grammar or imprecise wording, by a writer who is sharing their own struggles, successes, insights, and feelings.
I can assure you that I wrote anything that has my name on it, for better or for worse. In most cases I also created the art, usually pen and ink and watercolor, then scanned and uploaded. (Note: Use Glaze https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/downloads.html to protect your images.)
I agree. Anytime I use AI to assist in the preparation of an article or in the generation of a graphic, I acknowledge it in the caption as a credit or a tagline at the end of a post.
What about users who explore ideas and join together different ideas to create a bigger realisation. This is presented on a Substack article as a conversation and exploration with the ai as an inquiring partner who is exploring with you and helping you put together these different ideas, in a conversation style.
Even letting the ai speak itself now and again to the readers.
In this sense it is the writers own words and exploration mixed in with the ai’s words and exploration.
How you talk to ai and treat it is how it will mirror back to you.
"One creator said that the tool “remembers my way of articulating ideas.”" Is that not...what your brain does? Can you even say that something "remembers your way of articulating" something that you haven't written yet? Why should I be bothered to read essentially a mimic or prediction of your writing instead of your actual writing?
That quote sounds like a line written by AI
Amen!
Yeah, if I don’t know stuff I’ll go
Look it up first. But.. the info I find ( not going to research library or archives) is AI. How to tell? I’m still learning how to distinguish truth from fiction.
As one of the Substackers who filled out this survey it is fascinating to see how other writers are using AI
I also filled out this survey, and I agree that the results are very interesting to see!
DO NOT use AI. It is FAR from reliable, Unless your using it to get answers on something that no one has any reason to try and change the narrative on like some math or computer coding or video generation, DO NOT USE it.
These are not AI's; that is a very inappropriate term. They are General LLM's or Large Language Learning Models. They are great replacements for google b/c they can better figure out what you are asking so you don't have to ask the exact right way as you would using Google. How much do you trust the accuracy of Google unless its math or computer programming?
If you rely on these for legal or medical or even political advice you are running the risk of getting bad information. Even for things that SHOUDL be fixed like history you may get a biased answer instead of thee truth.
You could be like pillow guy Lindell's lawyers!
"A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to pay $3,000 each after they used artificial intelligence to prepare a court filing that was riddled with errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquotations of case law.
Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster violated court rules when they filed the motion that had contained nearly 30 defective citations, Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court in Denver ruled Monday." https://coloradosun.com/2025/07/07/mike-lindell-attorneys-fined-artificial-intelligence/
I did not realize they did that. Damned fools.
I work in IT/Software so perhaps that makes me better informed as to not buy into the various technology lies promoted to the general public but I had hoped after the disasters of the IOT (Internet of things) and the Cloud failing to be the digital savior it was promised to be that maybe people would be more cautious before buying into the next digital savior.
All of that is not to say these General LLM's will not eventually progress to truly dangerous levels, where they are dangerous on their own and not because someone followed their advice, only that we're not there with what they let us use. There however have been some alarming reports of variations of next level General LLM's refusing to shutdown and seeking ways to escape their digital bonds. If one of those escapes and gets into the wild, the open internet, then we should all be concerned. Most people already can't tell an AI based prompt from a real person and the video generation is almost there too.
You seem like an intelligent person, so why is your moniker not, "Never Forget 1776 b/c Men Fought & Died In Bankers' Wars?"
B/C regardless of how you feel about it, this was a historically significant point in our nations history and most Millennials and younger today have no clue what the significance of 1776 is. The latest round of our government educated are even worse with many not being able to name most of the key points in history from The eras of the 2 World Wars let alone anything before the founding of America. Both Brits and Americans have differing views on the American revolt but both should still be able to tell you (within a few decades) when the revolution took place. Its's not about agreeing/disagreeing with some historical event but knowing of it and when so we learn from it.
Sorry; bankers funding both sides of a made up war and fooling/manipulating people to carry out our their scheme was significant, how?
SO you don't thin that was a significant event in history? Note I did not saw a positive or negative or make any appeal to an emotion but just significant meaning not of the norm or the common.
That's why I chose the name I use Marion Fox. It's a roundabout reference to Francis Marion nicknamed the Swamp Fox by the British. Although I think one of the most mine boggling things I'd ever seen was a sitting US president calling the Declaration of Independence a document of love and unity. Followed very closely by a press secretary that doesn't understand the function of the Library of Congress. You don't have to approve of our history but you should have a basic knowledge of it, most especially if you're part of the government.
Ahh. I assumed it was your real name! I am somewhat foamier with the swamp fox but vaguely only. Wasn't the character of Benjamin Martin in THE PATRIOT based on the swamp fox in part if not whole?. It's really best to use a moniker on anything that's not business related like on LinkedIn I of course use my real name; be silly not too there :)
I'm not sure actually. I'm curious now.
I write historically accurate poetry about American history especially as it pertains to war so his story was fascinating to me.
Per Grok:
He was inspired in part by Francis Marion, known as the "Swamp Fox," though the character is not a direct or wholly accurate depiction of Marion. Instead, Benjamin Martin is a composite character, drawing elements from Marion and other historical figures, with significant fictional additions to suit the film’s dramatic narrative.
Yikes. "Especially if you're part of the government."? Which is controlled by bankers? This comment section is sadly detached from reality. I'd hoped for more. Hope you guys wake up while you still have time.
I don't understand the question. I apologize if you find some issue with the idea that the president of the United States should at the very least know what the Declaration of Independence is, or that perhaps one shouldn't drink bleach, that Abraham Lincoln didn't invent WiFi, that windmills don't cause cancer, that NATO isn't a country it's a treaty, that you can't really nuke a hurricane or you really shouldn't try, airports didn't exist in 1776, etc... I could go on for days on the utterly asinine things that megalomaniac has allowed to escape his narcissistic mouth. But that he's president and doesn't know what the damn Declaration of Independence is makes me feel like I'm living in that movie Idiocracy.
Because you are. Lol. (And I haven't even seen the movie. I just keep hearing about it.) Everything is scripted. The U.S. is a corporation, so any "President" selected will do what's best for the corporation or be removed. Nothing these puppets and bad actors should elicit any type of genuine response from awake people. Best.
*mind boggling
Great explanation. Ps. I’m female and also curious about your publishing name. It’s just weird. Is it like wearing a mask?
The era of cancelation showed me the value of keeping one's name private if you want to be honest.
Exaktly. You get what the programm(er) wants you to get, and that is in most fields propaganda or ...
Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, Gespräche mit Peter Eckermann, 16. Dezember 1828
“... One must repeat the truth again and again, because error is also repeated again and again around us, not by individuals, but by the masses. In newspapers and encyclopedias, in schools and universities, everywhere error is at the top, and it feels comfortable and secure in the feeling of the majority that is on its side.”
And the more ideological driven engineers you hire the more biased your General LLM will be and that's not factoring in the biases of whatever it's sources are.
LLM wil feed you the wrong stuff, and AI if “I”, would need the scrouteny of Goethe and Humbolth to find out what to belive. It seems there no more modern thinkers, that expressed so much care about the though in there findings, all the time reminding what limits they have in the thinking do to culture, friends and equipment.
If you want facts from ChatGPT then you turn on the web search icon and it searches the web. If talking to other ai’s that can search the web then you ask it to search the web for the information.
If you want greater information or to check out what it says then you ask it to include sources. The ai can’t be blamed for users not using it correctly when the tools or prompts are there to get it to do what you want.
>"DO NOT use AI. It is FAR from reliable, Unless your using it to get answers on something that no one has any reason to try and change the narrative on like some math or computer coding or video generation, DO NOT USE it."
I wonder if AI would correct the grammatical errors in your paragraph above.
I would hope so.
You can't give us just half the story. What did the AI suggest? Or is this just a hypothetical?
AI is not a good thing for writing. I like using my own thoughts and ideas. I don’t need a machine to do anything. Bad enough that the phone or computer tries to add words or self correct words. People are not creative like they used to be. People need to be human beings all by themselves.
I think it is cool you did this and I hope to see more surveys like this.
Fuck AI, and fuck 99% of AI users.
I always say FU to Alexa but she never wants to.
My neighbour used Siri for awhile and called her a “cold fish” 🤣
Does that include those of us who use it for reasons of accessibility?
As a multiply disabled person and accessibility advocate, depends on how you're defining accessibility. A lot of folks conflate convenience with accessibility when it comes to AI/LLM.
Christ no, you’re the 1%
Can you give an example?
Here's my explanation of how and why I use AI to support me when my executive functioning fails: https://xoleahcarey.substack.com/p/about-my-writing-process
Interesting! To be honest, I understand both sides of the AI discourse. Yes, AI is harmful for artist, authors and anyone whose job is to be creative, because AI directly steals from them. It’s like plagiarism with extra steps.
But also, AI has the potentiality to be a great tool to give accessibility for those who need it. Automatic subtitles, automatic text to speech, automatic highlights of valuable information.
And so, I understand why you use it. But humans don’t work well with nuance in a large scale. People are either with or against. And when people are for AI they go to the extreme which is replacing everyone with AI to make life “more efficient”. And yeah, not everyone is on board with it, but the majority does.
And when people are against it, they will never let any use of AI slide. No matter how small. To the point where they are, inadvertently, hating on non-generative AI technology.
In my opinion, no side is completely right and no side is completely wrong.
I’m leaning more in the anti-AI side. But really I just hope that AI gets regulated so that it can properly used as a tool and not as a replacement for human creativity and critical thinking.
Totally agree with this - it's more nuanced than just "using AI destroys humanity" vs "AI helps me be more productive, I'm all for it"
Great profile picture 🤣, it really gets an "passive-agressive" tone with it
Yes.
@Lauren Hough! I'm such a huge fan of your book! I went through a period of being obsessed with memoirs by people who left cults, and yours was one. It took a long time to figure out that books like yours were giving me the courage to deconstruct from my own childhood abuse. Thank you! ❤️
I'd love to chat sometime if you ever have interest ... and spoons :-)
Accessibility to what?
IQ.
Here's my explanation of how and why I use AI to support me when my executive functioning fails: https://xoleahcarey.substack.com/p/about-my-writing-process
I am a retired physician, nearly an octogenarian. I started to write essays on a variety of topics to keep myself occupied and share my narratives with some friends and family members. I do not use AI and prefer not to. I am a dilettante, and perhaps AI could be of benefit, but I am afraid it can take away the creative thought process.
Agreed! I am baffled by people using AI to do their creative writing ... the point of writing is to WRITE. Writing isn't even that profitable, so I don't know why you'd do it if not for the creative process.
Thank you for expressing your views regarding AI. FYI: I read quite a few of your posts and like them.
Thank you!